Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-07-13
A rHiSapprehensiOn Set Right.

Lest any one should be misled by
the garbled report published in the
Times of the testimony taken before
Justice Terry, of Pasadena, in the case
of Blennerhassett VS.. Lynch, relating
to the alleged Illegal registration last
fall of voters in the Assessors Office
in the interest of Hon. Joseph d.
Lynch, we publish the following affi-
davit, made by the plaintiff in that
case on the 23d of May, 1887. 1t will
be remembered that the case last Sat
urday was civil suit, in which Blen-
nerhassett sued Lynch for $3.50 for al
legged services in getting up testimony
in the contest of Lynch VS.. Vandever,
and that the Court promptly entered
judgment against the plaintiff:
IN re contest of Joseph D. Lynch
VIM. vandever.
STATE COUNTY or yaalTUssln' Of Eas Angeles IS.
Z. Blennerhassett, being first duly
sworn, saith: That he has read the
evidence of George Gard, given in the
contest between Joseph D. Lynch and
VIM. Vandever for the seat in the
House of Representatives from the
Sixth Congressional District OF the
State of California that he did not at
any time inform said Gard that there
was illegal registration or enrolment
of voters going on in the County AS
SCISSORS Office of Los Angeles county
that he did not give to the said Gard
or any other person, any list contain
ing one hundred or more names OF
any number of names of persons pur-
porting to be illegal voters, or persons
not entitled to enrolment or registra-
ton on the Great Register of Los An
geles county, to be used at the
election for Congressman on the I'd
November, 1886, or at any other time
that he was not required by any per-
son to make any list, or to enroll the
name of any person or persons Tor
registration for the purpose OF voting
at said election, who was or were not
entitled to be so registered or enrolled.
That no persons were enrolled by affi-
ant acting as Deputy County Assessor
of Los Angeles county who were not
entitled to be SO enrolled for registra-
ton or well known to affiant not to
be so entitled. That any and all per-
sons who were enrolled by affiant as
such Deputy County Assessor between
the I'd day of October, 1886, and the
22d October, 1885, were so enrolled by
him, not for the purpose of enabling
them to vote on the I'd November,
1886, but because his duty as such
Deputy Assessor required him to en-
roll the names of all qualified electors
presenting themselves to him for that
purpose. That when affiiant enrolled
the name OF any person between the
dates above mentioned for the pur-
pose of registration, it was done under
the understanding and knowledge
that the registration of electors
for the purpose of voting
on I'd November, 1886, had
closed; and that the persons so en-
rolled by him between said dates
would not be entitled to vote at the
general and Congressional election
held on the I'd November, 1886.
That affiant had been, prior to the
I'd October, 1886, and up to that date
a Deputy County Clerk under Chas.
H. Dunsmoor, County Clerk of Los
Angeles county; that ON the I'd Octo-
Der, 1886, the book in which he had
been enrolling the names of electors
for the purposes of registering them
with view of voting ON the I'd Nov
ember, 1886, was returned by him to
the said County Clerk and that he
received no notice from said clerk
after the I'd October, 1886, to continue
such registration, or that said clerk
had resolved to continue the registra-
tion OF voters up to the 9th October
1886.
(Signed), f. BLENNERHAssETT.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 23d May, 1887.
(Signed), N. LINDENFELD,
Notary Public. [sEAL.l
OF course, any testimony published
by the Times in the case OF Blenner
hassett VS.. Lynch that conflicts with
this affidavit must be taken cum grant
sails.